Quick question for my audience

What is the right reaction to this antagonizing behavior?

Confrontational situation:
You walk in and calmly and explains the problem and ask for it to be addressed reasonably.
Your opponent stands up, defensively, and says loudly (so that everyone can hear his signal for this attack)
“Huan. STAY CALM! I know you are very upset, But let’s be reasonable here, what you say is not the case and that we are right and you are wrong.”
People on his side on seeing this attack pattern will swoop in and follow suit:
“Please, Huan, stay calm! There is no need to be so upset!”
At this point, all I have stated were the facts and then I stand there and listen to three people accusing me of being UNCALM and UNREASONABLE.
Now, if I reacted in any way, (“what are you talking about? I am calm!!”, “But here are the facts…”, “Would not be reasonable if xyz were the case instead”…) I will be met with the same
“Huan, stay calm! Let’s be reasonable here.”
And try as you might, your reasoning, your composure will not remove the coloring that your opponent in this meeting are putting on you. In fact, maintaining composure and not react to the obvious provocation is quite a challenge.
Later on, in a court of law, everyone in the room will say:
“We tried to reason with Huan but he was very agitated, we tried to calm him down, in fact we have recordings of us saying ‘CALM DOWN HUAN!!'” and he just exploded!
What is the correct response to this kind of attack pattern? I mean, there doesn’t really seem to be any option left for me, and the only exit, that would not lessen my ground in court, is an immediate and silent departure.
Hypothetically speaking, for those of you who are monitoring my blog for pay or glory. This blog entry does not purport to be related to an actual situation that have or will take place before, after, or on the instant of this blog entry’s posting.

The King of California

In this day of post-christmatic Sunday, I watched a movie on Netflix. “King of California”

Apparently, according to the movie, the name California was originally a made-up name to mean a place with lots of gold…
Michael Douglas’s character, Charlie, tries to find gold by digging into a Costco floor (yes through the cement, and into the sewage line). Needless to say, he died in search of the mythical gold leaving her daughter Miranda by herself. The movie ends with Miranda finding new immigrants, Chinese, I believe, asking her if he’s arrived at America. (It’s a thing of Chinese language to use some supportive sounds to ask a question. “America, ma?” I remember my own arrival in the US, when I had asked a similar question by saying “Shannon ne?”, where the “ne”, making it a question asking where is shannon, got swallowed by Shannon, and the person I asked could not understand why I was saying some girl’s name at him, and explains patiently, “No, I’m Chris, Shannon is somebody else!”
Alas, I feel that I am closer to Charlie’s gold than to Miranda’s suffering from Charlie and certainly long time has past since that time when I was fresh out of the water.
Some days, like today, I really really envy Charlie, and I wish I had the faith, the conviction, and the vision of that bright yellow light so that I could take off my oxygen mask and swim through the narrow opening and into the wide golden brilliance.

Why do I care about privacy?

You might wonder why I spend so much time on my blog complaining about the lack of protection for personal privacy.

In my previous entry, I mentioned that one way to motivate personal privacy protection is to reverse the corporation argument. When the laws for corporations were established, it is modeled after a human being, with rights to hold property and to enter legally binding contracts. Certainly the supreme court recently upheld that view of corporation by giving corporations in the US the right to have political views and to participate in politics–just as any person would.
So, let’s reverse this argument. If a corporation is modeled after a person, and there are secrets, as long as they’re deemed trade secrets, that are protected by law. Should a person not be guaranteed his privacy in the same way?
More plainly, I think most people will agree with me that bank account names and passwords should be protected. Because that guarantees a person his personal property–a fundamental right in America. That means YOU CANNOT LOG INTO MY BANK ACCOUNT AND LOOK AT HOW MUCH MONEY i HAVE, and YOU CANNOT TAKE THAT MONEY OUT AND PUT IT INTO ANOTHER ACCOUNT EVEN IF THAT OTHER ACCOUNT IS MINE ALSO!!!!!!
Let’s phrase it another way. This American Government has secrets. There are very strict federal laws that disallows making public information, or even make individuals aware of or aware of the existence of certain information. And some of these secrets are about disagreeable agendas or actions or mistakes or direct violations of laws by the government.
By the same token, and by the 5th amendments, individuals should not have to make public or even make the government aware of information that it does not want them to know, EVEN if it’s evidence of my own wrong doing!!!
So this means if I have a secret contract to work with my employers competition, and I keep this information on my personal device. My employer should be breaking laws and should be punished severely if they come to know of this act by reading my personal emails (which I have kept off of company computers). If my employers put a camera in my home. If my employer put listening devices (AKA bugs) on my person, or in my food. If my employer installed a device on my pen to record the text of my writing. If my employer put a tracking device on my person, personal clothing, my car, my bike, my personal laptops.
ALL of these things are severe violations of my personal privacy rights!
If further, my employer make this information public, or to make it known to my peers at work. This should be considered a greater offense and should be punished severely!
If an agent does this on behave of my employer, the employer and the agent should both be punished.
If you are an employee of the company and you violate my privacy on your own accord for competitive reasons, then there should be federal law–not corporate rules–that prevents this act. I should be able to take you to court for reading my personal email because we work together!!
Now, needless to say I feel that my hypothetical taking of a contracting job with a competitor may be immoral and illegal, but that does not give the company the right to invade any of my personal privacies!!
Nor to do so indirectly!!
The company cannot spy on me! And it should also be illegal for the company to require or prefer the signature of a release allowing them to do so.
Btw, this release is stated indirectly, typically that you agree to not sue the company for privacy violations. Because it doesn’t say the company will do that, but it prevents you from seeking justice after the fact. So think of it this way. After you sign that, they can put a camera in your bathroom and watch you and your wife and your kids shower, and they can take the money that your hard work makes for the company and hire a person full time to do this, and you cannot sue because you agreed to it as part of the condition to work for them.
Alternatively, companies may ask you to sign this agreement at the exit. Which means they might have done so already and just want buy the right to keep those tapes and watch them again and again and you release them for what? maybe 3-months severance? maybe 6 weeks? maybe 100 stock units? It’s not worth it no matter how much they give you.
This clause should be as illegal as blacklisting union member!!
There really should be federals safe guarding day-to-day personal privacy of American Citizens.